I’m not the first to point this out, but it’s interesting when people who are critical of those who claim to take scripture literally, claim that they are taking a particular scripture literally.
For example, if you’re going to claim that you are taking one of the Gospels “literally”, how do you then take parts of that gospel not literally? It seems as though the individual Gospels don’t lend themselves to being subdivided into literal/not literal.
To be clear, when I refer to taking scripture literally, I mean that we take things as they were intended. For example, a Biblical literalist would argue that parables are literally parables and should be interpreted as such. In other words a literalist approach, acknowledges that figurative language and style is figurative.
Back to the point. If you are going to take the Gospels “literally”, (and as factual history told in a more modern sense), how exactly do you deal with the stuff you can’t “prove”? How do you decide that “demon possessed” equals what we’d call mentally ill? How do you take “gave a blind man his sight”, to mean that Jesus provided some sort of 1st century medical treatment?
I could be wrong, but it seems like applying a presuppositional naturalism to scripture means that you have to assume that the Gospel writers are either lying, stupid, hoodwinked, or brainwashed. But doesn’t that supposition call into question the entirety of their writings?
It ultimately comes down to who Jesus was, and was He trustworthy? Or, are we required to find a naturalistic explanation for certain events?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think intent is essential in deciding what it means to take Scripture literally. For example, "four corners of the earth" is an expression, not a literal description of the shape of the earth. Thus, to pretend this phrase must mean the latter is foolish, even considering that it may have been said in ancient times. "Sunrise/sunset" is another example.
And of course, we've been dealing with taking literally the notion of "bringing Good News to the poor". Before I take that literally, I need to know if it refers to the material poor, or the poor in spirit. By itself, I can't know. By itself, I'd have to assume it refers to the materially poor. But in light of other verses, as well as a study of the original language from which we translated to English, enough evidence suggests it's a spiritual condition referred by the verse. Both original language, together with other verses, we can better determine the intent of the speaker or Scriptural author, thus better determine the lesson, moral or teaching and then know what it means to take it literally.
I agree that intent is critical. But I think it’s fair to say that taking the “4 corners” statement as it was intended, is consistent with a literal reading of scripture.
When you add details to the scripture, then claim you’re reading the text literally, it seems problematic. B
"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
It seems as if you apply this sort of presumptive naturalism to Luke, you are stuck with having to explain Luke 1. If you counter that Luke "didn't know", the that calls into question everything he wrote. How does one take any of the things he describes that aren't explainable from a naturalistic perspective seriously?
Post a Comment